tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 9, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am EDT
ambulance, and i was rushed to a hospital. doctors did not expect me to live. i did. i was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy, which was caused to my brain oxygen while surviving an abortion. i was never supposed to hold up my head or walk. i do. tremendouslsy is a gift to me. i was eventually placed in foster care, and later adopted. hear me clearly. i forgive my biological mother. year after myst birth, i was used as an expert where ann a case abortionist had been caught strangling a child to death after being born alive. , the founder of planned parenthood, said the merciful, "the most
thing a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." planned parenthood is not ashamed of what they have done or continue to do, but we will have to give an account as a nation before god for our apathy and for the murder of over 50 .illion children in the womb every time we falter in courage as individuals and fail to confront this evil, i wonder, how many lives have been lost in our silence while we make sure we are allotted among men? men and that we don't offend anyone? andmany children have died been dismembered, and their parts sold for our ego and our promiscuity? wereany lamborghinis
purchased with the blood of innocent children, the blood that cries to the lord from the ground like that of the blood of .bel not one of them, ladies and gentlemen, is forgotten by him. i would ask planned parenthood the following question, 38 years later. if abortion is about women's rights, then what were mine? continuously use the argument if the baby is disabled, we need to terminate the pregnancy, as if you can determine the quality of someone's life. less valuable due to my cerebral palsy? you have failed in your arrogance and greed to see one thing. it is often from the weakest them us that we learn with -- wisdom, something sorely lacking in our nation today, and it is with our folly and our to thehat the blinds us
beauty of adversity. planned parenthood uses deception, the manipulation of language, and slogans such as "a woman's right to choose" to achieve their monetary gains. theyl illustrate how well have employed this technique. their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. in consequence, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan." adolf hitler. we often hear that if planned parenthood were defunded, there would be a health crisis among the services they
provide. this is absolutely false. pregnancy resource centers are located nationwide as an option for the woman in crisis. all of their service is our free and confidential. -- services are free and confidential. they can be reached by texting 313131. there is access to vital exams for women other than planned parenthood. we are not a nation without options. planned parenthood receives $500 million of taxpayer money a year to primarily destroy and dismember babies. do not tell me these are not children. a heartbeat proves that. so do 40 ultra pounds, -- ultrasounds, and so do i. does the fact that they are selling human organs for profit. do not tell me this is only a woman's issue. it takes both a man and a woman to create a child. to that point, i wish to speak to them and listening to me.
you are made for greatness. listening to me. you are made for greatness. you are born to defend women and children, not to use and abandon them or to sit idly by when you know they are being harmed, and i am asking you to be brave. in conclusion, let me say that i am alive because of the power of jesus christ alone, in whom i live, move, and have my being. without him, i would have nothing. with him, i have all. thank you. chairman: thank you for that compelling testimony. mr. bob. chairmanthank you, mr. , and i appreciate the chance to be here. i have substantial familiarity with this subject. the chairman mentioned my participation in the fetal -- fetal tissue transplant research panel and
whether it should be funded. the panel recommended that the moratorium the bush administration issued be lifted. of us dissented. father james burchell and i published a lengthy dissent. based on some of the arguments , thein that dissent administration continued the moratorium on funding used in that research. based on the information that is come to light, it is apparent that planned parenthood's fetal practicescurement violate ethical and moral principles, and their own guidelines and promises to their patients. there are reasons why this happens, and it is, frankly, inevitable. first, planned parenthood believes the unborn has no human rights and can be killed at will at any time during pregnancy with the consent of the mother. history tells us that as soon as
you strip human beings of all legal rights, people will be commodities and abuse is a. second, planned parenthood receives substantial financial incentives for harvesting fetal tissue and their love of money supersedes all other consideration. in the videos, there are reported incidents of babies born intact and potentially alive after an induced abortion. because he or she had a heartbeat. removed byain was taking scissors and cutting the face -- brain was removed by taking scissors and cutting the phase open to remove the brain. if this barbaric -- face open to remove the brain. practice wasric true, it rivals any of the worst documented human abuses throughout history. but it goes beyond that. planned parenthood's love of fetal tissue
procurement, which can equal or exceed the cost they charge for the abortion itself, as apparently caused planned parenthood to change all relevant as the x of the abortion procedure itself. aspects of the abortion procedure itself. as a physician explained, she would meet with tissue procurement people before the days schedule of abortions and find out what tissue they wanted, and then she would target those particular yield to which might the fetal tissue the researchers wanted to purchase. in so doing, she made clear that she would change the abortion procedure to obtain the fetal saved only by crushing those parts of the fetal body that contained tissue
not being sought, or by encouraging and intact delivery. so, the abortionist starts her day with a shopping list and spends the rest of the day trying to fill that list with fetal tissue. in other words, as she said, if i know what they are looking for, i will keep it in the back of my mind and try to at least keep that hard in tact. a searchan being on and destroy mission for the mother, the planned parenthood abortionist is now on a search and harvest mission for their own profit. these practices potentially violate several federal and state laws when applicable, various moral and ethical rentals, and even planned parenthood's own -- ethical standards, and even planned
parenthood's own guidelines. there is a loophole for payments regarding fetal tissue. even with this broad exception, the evidence now is clear that planned parenthood, , thatf they are complying it creates sufficient financial incentives for substantial abuse to occur. the evidence also demonstrates that they go even beyond this perd exception to negotiate specimen market price with no to the costs associated. planned parenthood also readily changes the abortion procedure togain more fetal tissue sell, which would certainly violate federal law for funding fetal tissue transplantation research, which, admittedly, has
since 2007. it certainly violates the promise planned parenthood made to its patients not to change the abortion procedure, and planned parenthood's president admitted to congress this is what they do. toy may not even get consent change the donations, as required by many federal and state laws. there is evidence that technicians grab whatever tissue is available, regardless of the cost. finally, there is substantial evidence that children are born intact, andalive -- alive, and are killed for their tissue. throughlaw prohibits, the partial-birth abortion ban act and see born alive infant protection act, prohibits killing live or in infants after
-- live born infants after an induced abortion, either during delivery or after delivery. this law, passed in 2000, has an important, but limited purpose. a child born alive has the same legal rights as the rest of us. there is no right to a dead a b -- dead baby. finally, viability is a critical legal point. there is now sufficient evidence both from cmp and otherwise that are not taking legal protections seriously, and the general law is to blunt an instrument to provide sufficient legal protection when abortionists have financial harvest intact
fetuses for their tissue. this law needs to ensure that infants are not born then killed, but that they receive appropriate care and life, just like everyone else. chairman: thank you. the smith. -- miss smith. smith: i am an associate researcher in law at yale law school where i direct a program for justice. i am testifying today in my own capacity and do not purport to represent you law school, of course. i will make a few points -- yeah law school, of course. ale law school, of course. i will make a few points, and i am open for questions. first of all, this attack is
part of a long campaign to discredit planned parenthood and other abortion providers. it is indeed an attack on the right to abortion. that planned parenthood has been a target of many of these types of attacks. just since 2000, they have been the target of nine similar smear campaigns using hidden videos full of innuendo and false claims. every single time, these allegations have an thoroughly investigated and debunked. -- second, a quick comment on the videos. rely onuctant to li anything in the videos. a team of forensic x earthbound the tapes -- experts found the tapes have been distorted, manipulated, and have no evidentiary value. this was recognized this morning by the house committee on energy and commerce, which also found that there is no evidence that planned parenthood or its
affiliates have violated any federal or state laws. this is after thoroughly questioning witnesses and reviewing documents. i can comment, however, on the statute at issue. been pointed out, the federal statute does ban the sale of fetal tissue, but it does allow those who donate fetal tissue to recoup reasonable reimbursement for the cost of storing and transporting the tissue. these laws passed by a vote of 93-4 in this and it, or example. -- in the senate, for example. planned parenthood officials specifically state in numerous instances that were edited out of the videos but on the web that they are only seeking theyursement costs, that
do not profit from fetal tissue donation. in fact, they refused contracts that offered to them unreasonable cost. the tapesothing on that indicates a violation of the fetal tissue law. there are allegations that these tapesdingly edited provide probable cause that planned parenthood violates the partial-birth abortion act. i am intimately familiar with that act. in the caseounsel challenging the act. the supreme court upheld the law over my objections and held that the law was narrowly interpreted to apply in situations to which istact -- intactness completely irrelevant. the allegations here are based on repeating the word in tact --
an ominous manner, but that has no relevance. it is neither sufficient, nor even required to establish a violation of the act. instead, all that matters is whether at the out that of the procedure the physician -- outset of the procedure, the dosician had the intent to two things, vaginally deliver a feed is up to certain anatomical .andmarks, and then terminate ism not surprised that there so much confusion about the partial-birth abortion statute, because it was deceptively campaigned for in this congress and to this congress, and people were convinced it had something late-term,banning post-viability abortions, to which it does not apply
whatsoever. again, there is no evidence that physicians performed procedures that violated the act. questionsa number of that have been raised generally about the ethics of fetal tissue donation. when similar issues were raised during the reagan administration, the national institute of health convened a research panel of ethicist and both sidesthose on of the abortion issue. mr. bob was on the panel along with a former judge who was antiabortion. decisive majority found fetal tissue is morally desirable because it could be accomplished without incentivizing abortions in any way and creates medical advances. medical advances have come from that research. i see that my time is almost done, so i want to skip to what i think is the really horrifying thing about this hearing.
horrifying thing here is the mismatch between the allegations and concerns about abortion, about fetal tissue research, and what is being considered, which is defunding planned parenthood's non-abortion .elated services as judge kavanagh of the dz circuit explained recently in -- dissent, providing seamless access to contraceptives, which is a large what planned parenthood does, reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, furthers women's health, advances personal and national opportunities, reduces the number of abortions, and helps break the cycle of poverty. the horrible irony here is that defunding planned parenthood -- rather, would
increase the number of unintended pregnancies and drastically, i fear, increase the number of abortions necessary in this country. thank you. oden, welcome. ms. oden: thank you so much for your time. 327,653. this is the number of abortions 2014planned parenthood's as having beents completed that year. do i find this horrific? because i actually have a lot in common with them. i was meant to be one of them. just another been statistic, but by the grace of god, i am more than a statistic. i come to you today as a wife, a , a mastersister
level social worker, and yes, and abortion survivor. a child who lived. i have been called just about everything you can imagine. if you want to turn your attention to the screen, as you can see in my medical record from 1977, saline infusion for , but waswas done unsuccessful. in other times throughout my readal records, you will statements such as "of the complication of my mother's pregnancy was a saline infusion." it has taken years to unravel the secrets surrounding my survival, to have contact with my biological family and even the medical professionals who cared for me. --hough there are still on
still unanswered questions, what i do know is that my life was intended to be ended by that abortion and that even after that, my life was in jeopardy. you wouldn't know it by looking at me today, but in august of 1970 seven, i survived a saline infusion abortion. solution was injected into the amniotic fluid . the intent is to scald the child to death from the outside in. thatdays, i soaked in toxic solution. on the fifth day, my biological mother, a 19-year-old college student, delivered me after her labor was induced. i should have been delivered dead as a successful abortion. in 2013, i learned that not only was this abortion forced on my mother against her will at the age of 19, but also that it was my maternal grandmother, a nurse
, who delivered me in this final step of the abortion procedure at st. luke's hospital in sioux city, iowa. unfortunately, i also learned that when my grandmother realize not succeededad in ending my life, she demanded i be left to die. i may never know exactly how to nurses on staff that they found out about me, but what i do know is that their willingness to fight for medical care to be provided to mail to met leases ain't my life. to be provided to me ultimately sustained my life. i know a doctor who delivered a child like me in 1976. she delivered a little boy after a failed abortion. she followed the superior's orders and she placed him in a utility closet in a bucket of formaldehyde to be picked up after hemedical waste was left to die alone. a bucket of formaldehyde in a
utility closet was meant to be my fate after i survived that abortion attempt. i weighed a little less fan three pounds when i survived. , severeed from jaundice respiratory problems, and seizures. one of the first notations in my medical records is that i look like i was about 31 weeks gestational when i was delivered. despite the miracle of my survival, the doctor's prognosis for my life was very poor initially. would suffer from multiple disabilities throughout my life, yet here i am today, perfectly healthy. not just how abortion ends the lives of children like me that isn't talked about in today's world. it is also not discussed what happens to children like me who lived. we are your friends, your neighbor, your coworker, and you would likely never guessed by passing us on the street that we survived what we did.
through the abortion survivors network, i have had contact with 203 of these survivors. letters from other survivors have been submitted to this committee. i'm here today to not only highlight the horrors of abortions taking place at planned parenthood, but to give a voice to other survivors like to and most importantly give a name and a face to the other children who will have their lives ended at planned parenthood alone. i would urge you to remember my story and gianna's. we may not have survived abortions at planned parenthood, but the expectations that our lives would be ended are the very same as those who lose their lives there. i have long believed that if my mother's abortion had taken iace at a planned parenthood, would not be here today.
providing 300,000 abortions a year gives them the experience to ensure that failures like me don't exist. i deserve the same right to life and equal protection under the law as each and everyone of you. yet, we live in a time when not only do such protections not exist, but my own tax dollars and yours go to fund an organization that has protected the very thing that was and to end my life -- meant to end my life, and this must end. you very much, ms. oden. we will begin questioning the witnesses. i will begin by recognizing myself. lot today about efforts to sanitize the discussion of what takes place with regard to late-term abortions, which were the subject of the videos that have been made public. but ms. jessen, i would like to
review a statement from the video and then another statement by the center for reproductive rights and get your reaction to what i would call .hat sanitization in the first video, a doctor an abortion saying, "so, i am not going to crush that part. i am going to crush, basically, below. i'm going to crush above. " planned parenthood issued an apology for the doctor's tone, but a more clinical tone is used in a lawsuit brought by the center for reproductive rights against a kansas law prohibiting dismemberment abortion. crr states that starting around 15 weeks, physicians performing abortions may use forceps or other
instruments to remove the product of conception from the uterus, often in combination with section -- suction. partsy, this brings fetal through the cervix. this is known as dilation and & e.ation, or dnd -- d someone who has survived an abortion, can you please tell us how these descriptions of an abortion feel? >> you can probably see on my face. it is horrifying, absolutely horrifying to hear such things, but i also will never, ever forget, for as long as i live, watching dr. nick a toll that u.s. allied and drink -- tola eat ar. nico salad and drink wine, discussing so casually the dismemberment of children.
i will never forget that. i find it absolutely appalling that we are even having to conduct such a hearing in the united states of america. i hope that's sufficiently answers your question. chairman: it does. thank you. mr. bob, several years ago, there was a news story that came out of florida about an abortion survivor that was not rescued. the child was born alive in a toilet while the mother sought anxiously for someone at the abortion clinic to help her baby, but no one would help, and the baby died. are you aware of other evidence that's him abortion -- that some abortion survivors are not rescued? mr. bob: yes, and the example you gave was from 2006, when a in anorn infant was born abortion clinic in florida. what happened was the baby rather than providing any care
or treatment. there have been a number of criminal and other actions taken in that instance. but the -- but the people involved at the clinic were not charged, however, with the specific death of the child that they clearly caused. you know, there's been other instances in the kermit gosnell case when of course he was killing born infants or partially born infants using a scissors, by thrusting them into the back of the neck of the child. you know, you don't do that if the baby's dead. you only do that if the baby's alive. and of course, we don't know for sure whether that was -- while the baby was still in the womb partially or was in fact
outside of the womb. chairman goodlatte: thank you, mr. bopp. ms. smith. in the precursor to the gonzalez case, the case of stenberg vs. carhart, justice kennedy dissented from the decision to strike down the partial-birth abortion ban. which was later upheld in the gonzalez case in a different ban. >> a different version, yes. chairman goodlatte: that's right. he described at length the testimony provided by abortionist leroy carhart about the alternative d&e method or dismemberment procedure. the fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process. and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. dr. carhart agreed that when you pull pout a piece of the fetus, let's say an arm or leg and remove that, at the time just prior to removal of the portion of the fetus, the fetus is alive. dr. carhart also has observed fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with extensive parts of the fetus removed.
and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born as a living child with one arm. at the conclusion of a d&e abortion, no intact fetus remained. and dr. carhart's words, the abortionist is left with a tray full of pieces. justice kennedy said the fetus in many cases dies just as a human adult or child would. it bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. ms. smith, do you believe this practice represents a humane way to die? >> let me separate which i think something that's getting confused here in this hearing again and again. which is procedures performed on previable fetuses and procedures that are formed on viable fetuses. both of the women here on this panel are here today because
they were viable at the time the procedures were performed. what you're talking about is previability procedures performed on a fetus that cannot survive outside the wusme. -- womb. chairman goodlatte: maybe not. justice kennedy talking about a child born alive with one arm because the other had already been pulled off during the abortion procedure. the question to answer is this a humane way to die? >> i believe for a previable fetus yes, a d&e procedure is a very humane procedure and protects the woman. and her health and safety more than any other procedure. and in fact it was substituted for the saline -- chairman goodlatte: i'm going to reclaim my mind and say that your view of humanity and mine are different. and i'll ask mr. bopp and ms. ohden very quickly, if you support -- because you've already answered this question. if you support the pain capable abortion act that's passed the house of representatives and is
awaiting action in the united states senate? mr. bopp? >> >> yes. it is necessary for a number of reasons. and pertinent to this -- chairman goodlatte: it would efferent many of the instances i just described to the three of you would it not? >> it would and it could also prevent some of the instances because we don't know for sure the gestational length of the child. in some of the instances in the videos. but it could also prevent some of them. chairman goodlatte: correct. ms. jestin. >> i'm speechless with ms. smith's reply. that she thinks that's a humane way to die. i support. chairman goodlatte: ms. ohden. >> yes, i support the pain -capable act but i want abortion to be unthinkable in our country and not to have a conversation about another act. chairman goodlatte: thank you. i agree. mr. conyers. the gentleman from michigan is
recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank all the witnesses for being here today. but i want to direct my discussion with ms. smith. you note in your written 289-g, y that section 2-a, prohibits the transfer of any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration. but that the videos do not explain that the law specifies that valuable consideration does not include reasonable payment reimbursing costs. would an individual watching these videos have any idea that the law excludes the reimbursement of reasonable costs?
>> no, i think they would not. and i think they're very deceptive in that regard. so that they juxtapose discussions of money with the text of the ban on valuable consideration. it makes it appear that the money that's being discussed is the "valuable consideration" that's banned. there's no mention of the reasonable payments provision in the act. and the allowance for reimbursement of reasonable reimbursement -- for reasonable expenses. and i think that's terribly deceptive in the video, yes. representative conyers: i think that's a very perceptive response on your part. what are some of the examples of reasonable reimbursement costs, ms. smith? >> transportation cost. processing. preservation. quality control. storage. those are all examples in the statute itself. and those are the things that would be appropriate. representative conyers: thank
you. you note that fetal tissue research as provided innumerable medical benefits and has saved lives. could you please explain what these medical benefits have been? >> yes. in fact, in addition to the early polio vaccine in the 1930's, that was actually a result of fetal tissue research. more recent examples. and the department of health and human services has called fetal tissue research vital to the improvements that are being made in some very important areas. such as retinal degeneration, arkinson's, a.l.s., infectious diseases, development disorders, schizophrenia, diabetes, so there are many, many areaness which fetal tissue research has proved important and we are actually
seeing lives being saved because of it. and lives improved because of new treatments. ranking member conyers: thank you. could you explain, please, ms. , the ram he have indications for women if their access to abortion services is further restricted or ultimately denied? >> yes. i think one of the things we're seeing recently is that new wave of attack on abortion access in particular. so a number of -- an unprecedented number of restrictions have been enacted in the last four years by state legislatures which have been designed really and have resulted in the closure of many clinics throughout the country. so texas in particular as has been in the news quite often has seen the number of clinics there close by half. there are states that have only one abortion provider for all
residents in the state. like mississippi and north dakota. and in those states, women are just simply unable in -- and many women are unable to get abortions. they can't travel the distance required to obtain abortions. and the result of that is women with pregnancies that they don't wish to carry to term, some of them will suffer health and -- health impacts. and some of them, their lives will be endangered and nel get sick. but also abortion is also equally important because as the supreme court harris recognized, it protects the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation. as justice ginsburg put it abortion preserves a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course. and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature. and that's why i believe the supreme court got it right when it balanced the issues here involved and the interests in
potential fetal life, and the interests of the woman in her life and her health and her autonomy. and decided that abortion up to viability must be preserved. after viability, it can be in fact banned. but with exceptions for women's life and health. and one interesting note, in germany, for example, abortion, the courts there recognized a right of the fetus to life. but at the same time, they recognized that the woman who carries that life in her uterus and carries it through -- jess tates it until it is fully developed, the woman has a greater right. and thus abortions are legal. in germany. >> i want to thank you very much for your response to my questions. and thank you, mr. chairman. chairman goodlatte: the chair thanks the gentleman.
and before going to our next member, i want to make ailable for the record letters from other abortion survivors and a letter submitted to the written record by americans united for life. without objection, these will be made a part of the record. and i also want to clarify something that ms. smith said about the energy and commerce committee. the report you referred to is a report of the minority of that committee. and is by no means reflective of the work of the majority of the energy and commerce committee. >> thank you for clarifying that. i just received it this morning. ranking member conyers: may i please introduce into the record the planned parenthood statement as well as the leadership conference on civil rights and human rights
statements. chairman goodlatte: without objection, those will be made part of the record as well and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner, for his questions. >> thank you very much, ms. smith. you've had a great deal of experience in litigating these questions. and could you please give the committee your definition of what constitutes infanticide? >> what constitutes -- >> infanticide. >> infanticide. i think infanticide when a baby is killed, an infant. >> now, assuming that the baby is born following a botched abortion, and is alive, do you think that either killing the baby by commission or killing the baby by omission is infanticide? >> i think -- i would have to do more research on the state laws in what --
>> we have a federal born alive act. >> federal born alive act. and i would say it's a violation of the born alive infant protection act. not to take actions to preserve the life of a viable child. but when you're talking about a previable fetus, and let's remember that the -- >> i'm talking about born alive. a previable fetus is not born alive. and doesn't fall under -- doesn't fall under this definition. now, i guess what you are saying is that both ms. jepsen and ms. ohden, if there were not sufficiently concerned nurses that found them after the abortionists have not killed them during the delivery or the partial-birth abortion delivery, then there would have been a crime of infanticide simply by abandoning the live baby and not taking care of it.
am i correct in that? >> that certainly would be a violation of the current born alive infant protection act. >> ok. well, that's what the law is now. so i guess you are admitting that i am correct in this. >> i'm saying that it would be a violation of the born alive infant protection act. >> i think you're right on that. you and i agree. on that. >> that's the federal law, yes. >> that is the federal law. >> well, how come abortionists do not follow the federal law when they make a mistake and the baby isn't killed prior to being born? >> to my knowledge, they do follow the federal law. >> well, we have two examples sitting to your right and left of people where the law was not followed. and -- >> the born alive infant protection act wasn't in place -- >> i know it wasn't. >> when they were born. >> but started out by asking you to define infanticide and there were murder laws on the books even before born alive. >> yes. the most murder laws in the
ountry require -- they -- if a fetus is born alive. then it becomes a person. so then an act taking to in fact cause demise at that point would be murder. in most states. >> if they didn't do anything to save the child's life would it be manslaughter? >> i don't know if an act of omission would have qualified in those cases. i'm not familiar with the old cases on that. >> ok. >> and i don't think that they were very common. so i think we would have heard a lot more about it. if they were. >> ok. >> and certainly now -- >> well, we would be hearing a lot about it if -- when it happens now, and we have two witnesses who were born alive. >> in the 1970's -- >> infanticide laws were on the books in most states without the born alive protection act. and they're here.
now, i guess my question is, as you are a lawyer, you have been advising planned parenthood -- >> no, i never actually -- >> well, you represented their interests before the supreme court of the united states. >> i actually didn't. i was counsel for a different plaintiff in that case but planned parenthood was -- they were -- >> i'm sure planned parenthood didn't disagree with anything you said to the court. right? >> probably not. >> we'll assume that -- >> i hope not. >> we'll assume that for the sake of argument. now, whether or not planned parenthood broke the law when congress sets budgeting priorities, we have to decide what's important and what isn't. and which has a higher priority and should be funded. and which has a lower priority and should not be funded in the age of a $19 trillion deficit. >> right. >> now, could you please tell us why planned parenthood needs to get over half a billion
dollars of federal funding every year when there are other pressing needs such as feeding hungry children that maybe we should put that money into? >> let's be clear. that planned parenthood is not getting any federal funding for abortions. >> well, money is fungible, ms. smith. you and i know that money is fungible. >> i don't believe that is true. >> so the question is, you know, whether congress should appropriate another half billion dollars plus to planned parenthood when we could be spending that money on feeding hungry children. this is a question of priorities. i would like to know what your priority is. planned parenthood or feeding hungry children? >> my priority, i think -- i think funding planned parenthood and the services it provides is equal to feeding children. because what planned parenthood does is preserve women's lives that are the mothers of those children. it provides contraception -- >> how can they be mothers of
the children when children are aborted through planned planned parenthood? >> even women who are obtaining abortions, 60% of women obtaining abortions in this country already have at least ne if not more children. >> your priorities are different than mine. >> my priorities are funding planned parenthood's comprehensive health care services that go to low income women throughout this country. women who otherwise would become pregnant, unintendedly and who would then need abortions. so i would think as somebody who opposes abortion, you would in fact support as does judge cavanaugh of the d.c. circuit the funding of contraception -- contraceptive services to reduce unintended pregnancies. and to reduce the number of abortions. a no brainer and makes no sense not to fund knows services.
if you want to reduce the number of abortions. >> i don't think there's statistics that indicate that that is the case. >> there absolutely are. >> so i'll yield back. chairman goodlatte: the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. >> mr. chairman, first of all, before i begin my five minutes, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter from 56 national faith-based and religious groups supporting lanned parenthood. chairman goodlatte: without objection, they will be made part of the record. >> also. before i make my statement i ant to clarify when the born alive infant protection act whatever we called it was brought before this committee i surprised people by saying that i saw no point to opposing it. that it was -- it was a deliberate trap designed to entice pro-abortion groups into opposing it. and already the law of the
land. against murder. child ho kills a outside that has been born outside the womb and anyone who stands by and does not help it survive is guilty of manslaughter and no questions asked, with or without the born alive infant protection act. and this is -- it was introduced simply to slander the abortion groups to say that pro-abortion people support infanticide. we do not obviously. and mr. chairman, before i begin my questions i would like to express dismay at the title of this hearing. planned parenthood exposed. scomposke the practices of the nation's largest abortion provider. it is wrong and should be beneath this committee to state its conclusion without a shred of evidence and before we receive even a word of testimony. perhaps the majority's conclusion explains why not a single representative from planned parenthood is here to testify about its practices. and they also explain why the
chairman has chosen to ignore the request from ranking members conyers and cummings to suspend these one-sided investigations until they include the so-called medical progress which made the videos about which we have heard today. of course, if we really wanted to hear about the practices of planned parenthood, we could have hours of testimony and the compassionate comprehensive and affordable health care services they provide women and families. but the majority is not interested in hearing that testimony. if you clear away the partisan rhetoric, it appears that chairman has called this hearing to examine how planned parenthood participates in fetal tesh ue donation. which congress made legal with almost unanimous bipartisan support in 1993. in the year since fetal tissue and cells have been used to make groundbreaking medical discoveries, if you want to find the cure for diabetes, for stroke or for hundreds of life-threatening illnesses fetal tissues and cells are a necessary part of the research. tool kit. and a moral part. the law surrounding fetal tissue are simple and clear. plood planned parenthood has consistently and clearly
demonstrated that the affiliates who participate in fetal tissue research which represent about 1% of all 700 planned parenthood health centers in just two states comply with these laws. just as they comply with thousands of other federal state and local laws and regulations every single day. that should be the conclusion of this hearing. but instead before any inquiry this committee has already declared planned parenthood guilty. and chosen to capitalize on the sensational, unsubstantiated smears, made in a series of unethical, possibly illegal videos. the goal here is clear. to smear planned parenthood. senator joseph mccarthy would be proud of this committee today. sadly, this is not the first time congress has been drawn into this charade. every time it follows the same pattern. extremists tried to entrap planned parenthood into unethical or illegal conduct and then makes sensationalist accusations. but in no time at all the claims are debunked and the investigations find no wrongdoing. this pattern is being repeated here today. mr. bopp, i would like to walk you through some of that
history with you. were you aware, mr. bopp, that in 2012, anti-abortion groups released videos claiming to show planned parenthood was conducting sex selective abortions? >> no. >> you're under oath, mr. bopp. >> know wlace in my mind, congressman. >> you're not aware of that? >> not aware of that. >> then you're remarkably ignorant for somebody in the field. and it was not true. mr. bopp, were you aware in 2011 that anti-abortion groups released videos claiming to show planned parenthood condoned sex trafficing and statutory rape? >> no. >> you're still under oath. and following the release of those videos, republicans in congress tried to cut off funding for planned parenthood and nearly shut down the government. are you aware of that? >> don't remember that they were connected in that way. >> ok. but you remember that the two things occurred? >> you know, the older i get the harder -- >> -- i'm trying to answer your question. >> yes or no do you remember or not? >> i don't know what your question is. >> do you remember that following the release of those videos republicans in congress tried to cut off funding for
planned parenthood and nearly shut down the government? >> i've answered that question. >> ok. >> but planned parenthood -- and your ans was that the two -- the two things that they -- that congress tried to cut off funding for planned parenthood and that government was nearly shut down, you didn't -- you don't remember they were connected? >> in that way, yes. >> thank you. planned parenthood already reported the act as claiming to be sex traffickers to the f.b.i. so once again not true. so the list goes on. in 2010, videos falsely claims women were pressured into abortion, not true. 2009, false claims about clinics avoiding parental consent, not true. 2002, false claims about statutory rape, not true. and for a real sense of deja vu, in 2000, videos were released claiming planned parenthood was participating in illegal tissue sales. but of course when the man who made those videos came before congress, he totally recanted his testimony. and an f.b.i. investigation did not lead to any charges against planned parenthood. again, not true. mr. bopp, were you aware of that hearing? >> i don't recall it.
>> ok. what is true is that the people who made these videos are liars in a long line of liars. it is true that if you had a shred of real evidence that planned parenthood was breaking the law, you would have taken it to a state or a federal prosecutor right away. but you didn't. mr. chairman, if you had even a bit of real confidence in the men who made these videos you would have brought him here to testify before this committee. but you didn't. and you don't have that confidence. the fact is this is all a farcee designed to shame women for exercising the constitutional right to an abortion, to scare abortion providers into ending their services, and to eliminate options for women to access health services. this is all based on lies, knowingly based on lies. i hope the majority comes to its senses and realizes they have fallen into the same sad pattern of lies and lies that we have seen for more than a decade. yield back my time.
>> the chair recognizes mr. forbes for five minutes. >> i apologize for calling any witness that comes before this committee remarkably ignorant and i apologize for that, that statement. even though it wasn't made by us. i can understand the voices on the other side of this committee. who would say please don't look at the video. this is not about the video. we don't want to talk about the acts. and like the wizard of oz, pay no attention to the man moving those levers behind there. what i cannot understand is that those same voices cannot say that there is no act that's too far. there's no act that's too brutal. there's no act that's not acceptable even for planned parenthood. and they want to talk about dollars, ms. ohden, if you're correct on the number of abortions and they don't report these numbers, based on the best evidence we had, you're talking about $147 million for
abortions last year. that -- big dollars. and what just startles me is when i hear mrs. smith say -- and i want to read this again. this is justice kennedy, what the chairman stated, this is justice kennedy's statements, not mine. he says this. he said he described at length the testimony provided by abortionist leroy carhart about the alternate d&e method for dismemberment procedure. this is what he said in court. and mrs. smith doesn't say that's wrong. she doesn't say that's inaccurate. here's what it says. the fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. dr. carhart agreed. that when you pull out a piece of the fetus, let's say an arm or a leg and remove that at the time just prior to the removal of the portion of the fetus the fetus is alive. dr. carhart has observed fetal heartbeat, via ultrasound, with
extensive parts of the fetus removed. and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born as a living child with one arm. at the conclusion of a d&e-abortion no intact fetus remains and dr. car hart's words the abortion is left with a tray full of pieces. and then justice kennedy goes on. in a supreme court case. the fetus in many cases dies just as a human adult or child would. it bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb. and to say that you support a woman's right to choose is one thing, to say that you might want to give health care to people is another thing. but for anybody to say that procedure and what you just
described, is humane, that that doesn't go too far, that's not too brutal. that is humane and acceptable, just defies my imagination. i couldn't imagine that happening to one of my pets, much less an unborn child. and then when i look, mrs. smith, i know you state that you're with -- your associate research scholar and law and senior fellow and director for a program for the study of reproductive justice at yale law school, and i know you're here in your own personal capacity today. but i just wondered, does yale have any study for the rights of individuals like mrs. jepsen or ms. ohden to be born without cerebral palsy? because it was a lot of questions when mr. sensenbrenner was raising those issues a while ago that apparently are unanswered. are there any such studies up there that would dare suggest the right of one of these